Quote:Reading the list of personnas for the games, my eye discerns that the balance seems to be tipped in favor of thrust over cut. I say this because despite the previous info I still view the gladius as a thrusting weapon. I suppose this is something like the view of the Japanese katana as for slashing/cutting despite a number of thrusting techniques. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

We have to go back to Connolly's theory that the "Pompeii"-pattern gladius was originally used by gladiators. Connolly's reasoning for this is that:

1. The "Pompeii"-pattern gladii have short, comparatively obtuse points, and broad, parallel-sided blades. Therefore, they actually are not as specialized for thrusting as their "Mainz"-pattern predecessors (which, as you recall from my earlier post, featured a far more acute-angled point, for piercing armor). Connolly convincingly argues that this would make the "Pompeii"-pattern sword ideal for the gladiators, who had no use for an armor-piercing sword in the first place, since their own body protection was minimal.

2. There was an exchange of ideas between the gladiatorial schools and the Army. The gladiatorial games provided weapons-based equivalent to modern MMA/NHB competition--a sort of "living killing laboratory" (for lack of a better term), where weapons and techniques could be analyzed and appraised. Both gladiators and legionary recruits were taught by a doctor armorum (weapons instructor).

3. "Pompeii"-pattern gladii found in excavated Roman military sites frequently have scabbards decorated with gladiatorial motifs, which suggests gladiatorial origins for this type of sword.

Therefore, I maintain that the gladius--especially in its final "Pompeii"/"Fulham" form--is very much a general-purpose, cut-and-thrust weapon.

Best,

A_M_P

Edited by Armed_Man_Piker (07/31/0503:03 PM)

_________________________
And the rapier blades, being so narrow and of so small substance, and made of a very hard temper to fight in private frays... do presently break and so become unprofitable. --Sir John Smythe, 1590

Quote:Gees, I hope other folks here are doing a heads-up on your last post. Gotta say that THIS is how I think the Internet needs to be used. Thanks for the great response and sound information.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Anytime, Bruce.

_________________________
And the rapier blades, being so narrow and of so small substance, and made of a very hard temper to fight in private frays... do presently break and so become unprofitable. --Sir John Smythe, 1590

Quote:Although, it is very unlikey that you would use a sword in a real situation, if the situation called for it, then i would say that a katana would be the best. The reason why i reccomend the katana is because it is designed in such a way that allows for maximum efficiency. Although without proper training it wouldn't be a whole lot better than any other sword. The katana as you obviously know, is Japanese. The Japanese had a simple philosophy: "One cut, one kill".So not only do you need to be good at making the cut, but you also have to know when to draw the sword and make the cut. Technically, when a katana is used properly there isnt a lot of clashing between swords like you see on television. It's a very quick, and descisive kill. That is true swordsmanship. And onto the practicality issue......... a gun would be best for self defense. A katana won't jam or stall, so if you plan on using it for vengeance purposes, or straight up killing, and not self defense then i suppose that a katana is a good choice. (Although a Psychiatrist or therapist would be a much better choice.)

First, the problem with carrying a sword is that the only people who would challenge you would stand twenty feet away with their gun drawn and aimed. You know the rest: "drop the sword or I shoot", "hand over your money", and "thanks for the sword".

Second, the katana draw-cut is a nice advantage in suprise situations, but that is about a quarter-second advantage over say, a dao or broadsword. Once the sword is drawn, the katana is no more effective than any other saber-class weapon.

Third, as stated before, THEY ARE ILLEGAL TO CARRY ON THE STREET, making this argument moot.

Also, to whomever suggested a switchblade (a knife that opens by button or centrifugal force), those are not only illegal to carry, but also are ILLEGAL TO EVEN OWN in the USA.

I prefer that we obey the law rather than just hope I don't get caught. Though I would feel very safe with an Angelsword Bowie in my coat (yes, that was one of the earlier Angels). A cut-and-run is not looked at highly by the law, and if you are mugged and defend yourself, you will have to turn in the weapon UNCLEANED to the police (another reason not to use a sword, blood rusts steel in minutes).

If I can mention, Nowadays I think if your "unarmed" training is good enough, you should never HAVE to draw a sword. Okay, MAYBE in aserious situation like knife vs. youand you cannot get out of there, possibly another sharp, pointy thing in your hands could help.But I think first, since It's my guess that through the gladius/gladitorial stuff we are talking about sword in the modern day, keep in mind a point that even warriors from centuries past probably even kept in mind:

#1 Know thy enemy. Common street thugs, our #1 enemy as MAs, rarely have any formal training (if they do it's the TKD they did for a year cause' they liked "karate kid"; no shot to the TKD people mind you I'm just pointing out the styles overall popularity and notoriety often draws people interested in the martial arts to above others simply because they have heard the name. PLEASE don't flame me just for mentioning your style in that context.PLEASE) and our thug's weapons are usually limited to gun, knife, pool cue, or pretty much anything he can hold in one/two hand(s) and swing. So, there's not really a whole lot going on there. His movements are AMAZINGLY predictable, if only because he's never been told that winding up telegraphs his next attack for three miles and he moves strictly out of emotion, not refined skill. He doesn't know how to use his knife either, he thinks it's just a tiny sword and uses it like that, adding another layer of predictablity to how he might strike. His gun, I wanna avoid for obvious reasons.I point this out, because way back when, when EVERYBODY used up-close and personal melee weapons and it's safe to say anyone who knows how to use it either knows nothing about the weapon or REALLY knows his weapon, EVERYTHING was how you fought and how much you knew about HOW to fight. That's why complicated parries and feints, etc, movements are in the weapons forms, it was to balance the fact a little that when you end up against somebody who knows something, you wont just fall because everything you know and all you techniques are meant for fighting rube conscripted farmers. The fact the enemy could know what you've got up your sleeve and counter it was HUGE I imagine,and if you didn't prepare for it, you might as well as start to writting out that will. In the modern day, your oppenent will RARELY know ANYTHING other than: hit hard=good getting hit=bad.

So really, ANY sword could work. The common rube thug wont be able to do anything other than flail, so as long as you can parry, have the slightest idea what you are doing, you aren't going up against 5 people and they do NOT have a gun, you will cut them down no matter what you use.

And really, if you've been training you're "unarmed" enough, it should never get to the point where you have to draw a(n) [insert painful pointy-sharp object here].

That's why I train arnis stick as much as anything else I do. THAT is a practical weapon, since it's virtually anything you can use in one, even two hands (sometimes).

Also, as people have mentioned, there is the legal side of things. It doesn't matter if they were kicking your dog while violating someone, if they are cut up and bleeding heavily (sometimes, even lightly if you hit the right nasty places) the cops will arrest YOU as well. That's one of the big questions we as martial artists ALWAYS ask ourselves in a situation "How much force do I use? Should I break something? IS this a situation where I absolutely cannot get out and he's much stronger than I am so should I kill him?" In essence, that's what we are doing. In todays world, lethal force in any situation is almost ALWAYS frowned on, especially if you could have done something other than go for a killing/severly injuring blow right away. that's why I think that "unarmed" should always be taught BEFORE weapons.

My spewl aside, if I had to pick, I would go with a knife."cleaner" somewhat than a full sword, and still just as nasty when you know how to use it.

_________________________
"Success is a process, not a destination. Have faith in your ability."~Bruce Lee

Very good point, DO. However, there is a problem with your analysis. How much "street smarts" and skills did they learn? If you try to keep him at arm length, will he respond with Tae-Kwon-Do's long range kicks, or close in and wrestle you to the ground? You have the problem of fighting a blank slate. Anything you do will get a different reaction than you expect. You have always fought against trained and skilled opponents in matches, and your anticipation and predictions are based around what you have seen them do. Yes, you have the advantage, but I know that the hardest people to fence against are rank beginners. You will win against them consistently, but those matches are won 5-2 or 5-3, almost never the comforting 5-0.

Never forget that the greatest swordsman alive was killed by a farmer holding a big stick. You should never be too confident even when facing a man that you know has never had a day of formal training.